MSNBigotry Watch.

NBC has apologized for MSNBC headline claiming that Pope Benedict apologized for "touching a boy."

NBC APOLOGIZES FOR MSNBC’S HIT ON POPE


March 30, 2010

NBC apologized today for an article on MSNBC’s website entitled, “Pope Describes Touching Boys: I Went Too Far.” The article that readers accessed after clicking on it actually had nothing to do with the pope.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue accepted the apology today:

NBC says the attributed quote was erroneous and they have corrected the error. An apology was also extended. The apology is accepted. We hope that whoever was responsible for this outrageous post is questioned about it and that appropriate measures are taken. We look forward to hearing the outcome.

  Here's some more information on the same story.

Obligatory Newsweek "Think Piece" Crapping on Some Christian Doctrine in Time for Easter.

It's as regular as the swallows returning to Capistrano.

This year Newsweek takes on the most Easter of Easter doctrines - Resurrection.

It's Easter—that most pleasant of springtime holidays—when children stuff themselves with marshmallows and stain their fingers with pastel dyes. In reality, of course, Easter is about something darker and more fantastic. It's a celebration of the final act of the Passion, in which Jesus rose from his tomb in his body three days after his execution, to reside in heaven with God. The Gospels insist on the veracity of this supernatural event. The risen Lord "ate barbecued fish [Luke] and walked through doors [John]," is how a friend of mine, an Episcopalian priest, puts it. This rising—the Resurrection—remains at the center of the Christian faith, the narrative climax of every creed. Jesus died and rose again so that all his followers could, eventually, do the same. This story has strained the credulity of even the most devoted believer. For, truly, it's unbelievable.

What would a good "think piece" be without polling data?

Despite the insistence of the most conservative branches of all three Western religions on resurrection as an incontrovertible fact, most of us are circumspect. The number of Americans who say they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ has dropped 10 points since 2003 to 70 percent, according to the most recent Harris poll.

70%????  That's fantastic!  You generally can't get 70% of Americans to agree that the sun rises in the morning!

And, of course, we have to have pop bible lit-crit:

Resurrection presented credibility problems from the outset. Who, the Sadducees taunted Jesus, does the man who married seven wives in succession reside with in heaven? The subtext of their teasing is obvious: if the resurrection is true, as Jesus promised, then in heaven you must have your wife, and all the things that go along with wives: sex, arguments, dinner. Jesus responds in a typically cranky way: "You just don't get it," he says (my paraphrase). "You are wrong," he said in Matthew's Gospel, "because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God."

Good thing the author stopped there because she would have shocked the average Newsweek reader with the rest of the story where Jesus reveals that Heaven is really Hell because there is no S-E-X in Heaven.

Ultimately, the author puts the idea of resurrection under her critical scrutiny and it comes out wanting because "How does God put bodies—burned in fire or pulverized in war—back together again?"

What a moroon.

Great Moments in American Culture.

160 cheesy Schwartzenegger movie lines.

Good Question.

George Neumayr asks:

Pope Benedict has taken serious steps to address the abuse scandal in the Church. What steps have a degenerate liberal elite taken to protect children in society at large? The feverish drive to silence and smear the Pope—from the New York Times to pundits like Andrew Sullivan and Maureen Dowd to editorialists at the National Catholic Reporter—is not about the protection of children but the imposition of liberal ideology on the Church. Period.


Their real objection to Benedict is not that he has done too little to reform the priesthood but that he has done too much. It was the New York Times and the National Catholic Reporter that pounced on him for issuing, in his first year as pope, a ban on the ordination of homosexuals. It was the National Catholic Reporter that ran pieces casting the “zero-tolerance” policy as heartless and draconian to wayward priests.

At this moment, children are safer in Catholic institutions than they are in public schools, but we don't hear any of the progressive intellectual class talk about that issue.

Back when Dissent was Patriotic

A trip down memory lane.

Constitutional Law

From the Cato Institute - 10 Rules for Dealing with the Police

The brave Washington Post gives a platform to the crazy bag lady.

It's a shame to see how far Richard Dawkins has descended into tinfoil hat craziness.

It's also a shame that the Washington Post has so little concern for its own reputation that it would give a platform to something that would clearly be seen as "raving bigotry" if it didn't target the bete noir of liberals.  Needless to say, we are not likely to see any similar things written about Mohammed or any living non-Christian religious figure.

But for the purpose of "holding paper," Dawkins writes:

"Should Pope Benedict XVI be held responsible for the escalating scandals over clerical sexual abuse in Europe?"


Yes he should, and it's going to escalate a lot further, as more and more victims break through the guilt of their childhood indoctrination and come forward.

"Should he be investigated for how cases of abuse were handled under his watch as archbishop of Munich or as the Vatican's chief doctrinal enforcer?"

Yes, of course he should. This former head of the Inquisition should be arrested the moment he dares to set foot outside his tinpot fiefdom of the Vatican, and he should be tried in an appropriate civil - not ecclesiastical - court. That's what should happen. Sadly, we all know our faith-befuddled governments will be too craven to do it.

"Should the pope resign?"

No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly - ideally - qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.

Edward Feser points out that only four years ago, Dawkins hadn't quite descended to this level of nuttiness.  In fact, he wrote in "The God Delusion":

Priestly abuse of children is nowadays taken to mean sexual abuse, and I feel obliged, at the outset, to get the whole matter of sexual abuse into proportion and out of the way. Others have noted that we live in a time of hysteria about pedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692… All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).


The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America… We should be aware of the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories, especially when abetted by unscrupulous therapists and mercenary lawyers. The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has shown great courage, in the face of spiteful vested interests, in demonstrating how easy it is for people to concoct memories that are entirely false but which seem, to the victim, every bit as real as true memories. This is so counter-intuitive that juries are easily swayed by sincere but false testimony from witnesses.

(The God Delusion, pp. 315-16)

That was then. this is now.  Now, any convenient calumny, no matter how unscientific, is a useful stick.

Who would have guessed that writing off half of all potential viewers would not not translate into market success?

Now is the time that we do "The Dance of Joy for the Suffering of Others."

CNN loses almost half of its viewership in the last year.

Plus a graph!

Now we do the "evil villain laugh" - Bwahahahahaha!

Witchhunt!

The legacy media is going to suffer another black eye on this one.

Father Thomas J. Brundage, who was the judge in the canonical Criminal Trial against Father Lawrence Murphy, provides information in the Catholic Anchor - the official publication of the Diocese of Anchorage - that cannot be found in the New York Times.  Father Brundage writes:

I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.

As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing out of a sense of duty to the truth.

The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.

Amazing! The New York Times has been stirring the pot against Pope Benedict for weeks and it never talked to a - 'ow you say - frickin' eye-witness.

Father Brundage makes the following interesting observations:

• "As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance."

This is an interesting observation.  I've dealt with a few people with similar mindsets - feeding their fixation is all they think about 24/7 and they get good at detailing long twisted skeins of stories and lies to get and cover-up what they obsess over.  It's easy for us to wonder how these monsters got away with what they got away with after the fact - and negligence cannot be excused - but anyone who has ever dealt with such a monster can attest that things are never as clear at the time. 

• "We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional."
• "In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening."

Murphy fit the profile.

• "In the summer of 1998, I ordered Father Murphy to be present at a deposition at the chancery in Milwaukee. I received, soon after, a letter from his doctor that he was in frail health and could travel not more than 20 miles (Boulder Junction to Milwaukee would be about 276 miles). A week later, Father Murphy died of natural causes in a location about 100 miles from his home.

Typical pathological liar.

And now for some more media malpractice.

• "The problem with these statements attributed to me is that they were handwritten. The documents were not written by me and do not resemble my handwriting. The syntax is similar to what I might have said but I have no idea who wrote these statements, yet I am credited as stating them. As a college freshman at the Marquette University School of Journalism, we were told to check, recheck, and triple check our quotes if necessary. I was never contacted by anyone on this document, written by an unknown source to me. Discerning truth takes time and it is apparent that the New York Times, the Associated Press and others did not take the time to get the facts correct."

Of course, not they had a Pope to smear and they had the precedent of "false but accurate" to go on.

• "Additionally, in the documentation in a letter from Archbishop Weakland to then-secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone on August 19, 1998, Archbishop Weakland stated that he had instructed me to abate the proceedings against Father Murphy. Father Murphy, however, died two days later and the fact is that on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial. No one seems to be aware of this. Had I been asked to abate this trial, I most certainly would have insisted that an appeal be made to the supreme court of the church, or Pope John Paul II if necessary. That process would have taken months if not longer."

So, let's get this straight, the claim against Pope Benedict is that he interfered with the process of bringing Murphy to trial, except that the process wasn't interfered with because it was going on when Murphy died.

Screw logic. We've got a Pope to smear.

• "Second, with regard to the role of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), in this matter, I have no reason to believe that he was involved at all. Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information."

Sure sounds right.

• "Third, the competency to hear cases of sexual abuse of minors shifted from the Roman Rota to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001. Until that time, most appeal cases went to the Rota and it was our experience that cases could languish for years in this court. When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger."

Ratzinger is devious.  He's covering-up by making the process more expeditious, fair and respectful of everyone's rights!

• "Fourth, Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues."

Ah, but where was he in 1967????? Why was he silent back then?

We can always move the goal post.

• "Finally, over the last 25 years, vigorous action has taken place within the church to avoid harm to children. Potential seminarians receive extensive sexual-psychological evaluation prior to admission. Virtually all seminaries concentrate their efforts on the safe environment for children. There have been very few cases of recent sexual abuse of children by clergy during the last decade or more."

Actually, that's another good point.  One that I've made privately.  When you see teachers being brought up for child abuse, it is current.  The Catholic priests that are still being uncovered date back to before the Reagan administration.

• Catholic dioceses all across the country have taken extraordinary steps to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. As one example, which is by no means unique, is in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, where I currently work. Here, virtually every public bathroom in parishes has a sign asking if a person has been abuse by anyone in the church. A phone number is given to report the abuse and almost all church workers in the archdiocese are required to take yearly formation sessions in safe environment classes. I am not sure what more the church can do.

Well, let's pray that it works.  It won't entirely, but it will help.

The End of Empathy.

Dr. Helen Smith has a nice essay up on the reasons why man liberals can talk a good game about empathy and compassion, but don't seem to have any empathy and compassion when dealing with real life conservatives.

What kicked off these reflections was Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom getting an e-mail from an old college professor who wanted his name removed from Goldstein's "about" page.  Goldstein called the prof who proceeded to treat Goldstein as if he was a pariah.  Goldstein observed:

It is an Orwellian world in which we live when fucking novelists want to distance themselves from those who criticize the government. Were Kiteley’s disgust over the comic purely aesthetic, I could at least entertain his point. But that isn’t the case: instead, Kiteley objects to the content, and sees Darleen’s cartoon as the online equivalent of shouting fire in a crowded movie theater.

The last couple of weeks has seen the "dissent is patriotic" meme morph into "not when it's done by angry white men."

Dr. Helen links to this article on the pschological differences between liberals and conservatives, as seen by Jonathan Haidt:

Jonathan Haidt is hardly a road-rage kind of guy, but he does get irritated by self-righteous bumper stickers. The soft-spoken psychologist is acutely annoyed by certain smug slogans that adorn the cars of fellow liberals: "Support our troops: Bring them home" and "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."


"No conservative reads those bumper stickers and thinks, 'Hmm -- so liberals are patriotic!'" he says, in a sarcastic tone of voice that jarringly contrasts with his usual subdued sincerity. "We liberals are universalists and humanists; it's not part of our morality to highly value nations. So to claim dissent is patriotic -- or that we're supporting the troops, when in fact we're opposing the war -- is disingenuous.

"It just pisses people off."

The University of Virginia scholar views such slogans as clumsy attempts to insist we all share the same values. In his view, these catch phrases are not only insincere -- they're also fundamentally wrong. Liberals and conservatives, he insists, inhabit different moral universes. There is some overlap in belief systems, but huge differences in emphasis.

Haidt theorizes as follows:

With all that in mind, Haidt identified five foundational moral impulses. As succinctly defined by Northwestern University's McAdams, they are:


• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.

• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.

• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.

• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt's research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions -- preventing harm and ensuring fairness -- but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.

Dr. Helen theorizes:

Why are liberals unable to sympathize with conservatives? I offer three possibilities. First, I often wonder if this “blind spot” for conservatives is similar to the psychopath who cannot comprehend the morality of those who are “normal.” At the present time, there is no known cure for treating the psychopath. Trying to get someone on the left to see where a conservative is coming from may be as difficult as trying to change the mind of a psychopath. Perhaps that will happen one day.


I am not saying here that liberals are psychopaths, for this would be incorrect for the most part. What I am saying is that their inability to understand the morality of conservatives makes them unable to understand their point of view, just as a psychopath does not understand the morality of normal people.

So just remember that next time a liberal treats you poorly, it may not be his or her fault. Like the psychopath who has no empathy for his fellow human being, liberals may have a blind spot when it comes to having any empathy or understanding for their conservative brethren. It often makes a psychopath worse to show empathy for him, as he will take advantage of it.

Dr. Helen's two other theories involve the general lack of exposure of liberals to conservatives, and that there are generally no repecussions for liberals acting like jerks. 

For example, if a Republican vents at a Democrat, he or she will be seen as a “hate-monger.” For an example of this, notice how Eric Cantor can have his office shot at and it is played down with all kinds of excuses, while if the tea partiers are said to have shouted at Democrats without any proof, it is taken as the gospel truth, with no video needed. The left are just “innocent victims.”

And as if on cue, Dr. Helen's husband reports:

AFTER COVERING BOGUS “THREAT” STORIES LAST WEEK, ABC and CBS Skip Arrest of Man Targeting GOP’s Cantor. It’s all about the narrative. Besides, if they’d covered it, they might have slipped up and mentioned that he was a two-time Obama donor.

Dan Barker is a tool.

I just listened to Barker's latest debate against Cardinal George Pell. Someone asked Barker to explain how he could criticize the life of someone who had given their life to others, such as Mother Teresa. He then spent a minute dumping on Mother Teresa as a fraud and a PR expert. This Daily Show clip captures the tin-foil hat looniness of Barker.

Here is the link to the link of the Barker-Pell Debate.

Cardinal Pell did a good job for someone with a day job.  He made some points and missed others.

Here is the link to Mark Shea's post with the Daily Show clip.

For some reason when I post the Daily Show link here it "eats" my links and the associated text.

Weird.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only person who looks at the "signs of the time" and says "WTF?"



Victor Davis Hanson on the timing of the current mess:

The strangest thing about Obama's gargantuan, trillion-dollar-plus new health-care entitlement is the timing.


Not only are we running $1.7 trillion annual deficits and scheduled to nearly double the $11 trillion debt in only eight years — and watching the logical end to an entitlement state in Greece's implosion — but we are witnessing the meltdown of almost every government-run program imaginable: Medicare is broke; the Postal Service is insolvent and cutting back Saturday service (but probably not a commensurate one-sixth of their budget); and now Social Security spends more than it takes in.

So is this frenzied effort to expand government, widen entitlements, raise taxes, and borrow more money some sort of nihilistic urge to achieve a universal, cradle-to-grave, redistributionist entitlement state at about the same time the entire system goes bankrupt?

Constant campaigning, photo-ops, fluff interviews, adulatory essays in the corrupt media — all this can give a one or two point plus in the polls. But the reasons the bumps are transitory and followed by net losses after a week or two is that the public now realizes we are broke. When Obama announces yet another give-away or entitlement, the public equates that with spending more money we have just borrowed, and suspects that this can no more go on than can the spree of the giddy shopper who maxes out a dozen credit cards, oozing wealth and confidence, before the tab comes in and financial destruction follows.

And:

The Obama administration is in a bit of a quandary.


On the one hand, it has found in the health-care legislation a paradigm of how to pass a bill that polls below 50 percent, authored by a Congress that polls below 30 percent and championed by a President that polls below 50 percent, without a single vote from the opposition: legislative gymnastics; picking up reluctant Democratic votes with promises of financial largess, executive orders, or personal perks; galvanizing a compliant media to champion the "success" and "momentum" of the president; and ridiculing as racist those who oppose the bill, comparing them to opponents of the landmark civil-rights bills of the 1960s.

In theory, energy and immigration bills could be cast in the same light and rammed through with the same procedure, perhaps even in the Senate. But on the other hand, it is hard to see the president's polls improving enough to prevent an implosion in November. Even apparent legislative success brings no lasting political rewards, since the majority of voters will resist things like cap-and-trade and amnesty even more than they did health care. The more Obama advances out on the plank, the more his supporters applaud his progress, the more the frail board will start to bend, crack, and break.

The point when liberal Democrats most applaud his momentum and progress will probably be the same moment when things implode — sort of like the proverbial army that rushes headlong well beyond its base of support, emboldened by a sense of progress, unaware that each step forward is further isolating it and winning it a host of new vulnerabilities.

Reaping the Whirlwind.

Democrat polling numbers post the Obamacare bill are looking like there is going to be a big blow-out for Republicans in November.

A Reply...

...to the Courtier's Reply.

The Argumentum ad Publicity.

If we hear a lot about something, it must be true.

Carl Olson at Ignatius Press responds to Maureen Dowd's recent vituperation attempting to tarnish Pope Benedict with an American priest scandal.  There's plenty of blame to go around, but - weirdly, in light of who Dowd chooses to blame - not as far as Benedict. Olson writes:

Archbishops, police, and prosecutors in the U.S. either ignored or covered up Fr. Murphy's evil acts during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s—but the man who is really responsible, Dowd insists, was the man who was first told about the situation in 1996: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, working in Rome. If this makes sense to you, congratulations—you are hereby certified to be an op-ed columnist for the New York Times. As the SoCon or Bust blog notes, "If then-Cardinal Ratzinger had permitted this priest to continue in his public ministry, that would have been an entirely different matter. But as it stands, the Church had only two choices regarding Murphy. Remove him from public ministry and let him live out his remaining days to reflect on his heinous crimes, or remove him from public ministry and let a sickly and old man (who died four months later) go through with a canonical trial."

Dowd also vents about women priests, which tells you everything you need to know: Dowd's real agenda here is not with sin and the scandal, but with promoting her ideological agenda. If a little careless, sense-free calumny is needed to get her there, then it seems she's willing to go in that direction.

Since we are getting near Easter...

...it must be time for the obligatory news stories scandalizing Christians.

And, so, we learn that atheist author Philip Pullman - author of the "Dark Design" children books - has a new book where Mary gave birth to twins - a good one and a bad one.

In the bestselling His Dark Materials books, author Philip Pullman depicted the church as a corrupt and murderous bureaucracy and God as senile, frail and impotent. And, despite condemnation by the Christian right, Pullman has now taken on the Gospels directly. In his new story, he writes that Jesus had a manipulative twin brother, Christ, who tempted him in the wilderness and betrayed him to the authorities.


Using the four Gospels as its source, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, which will be published on Wednesday, has the naive young Mary giving birth to twins after a visit by a mysterious stranger claiming to be an angel.

The babies grow up into the physically robust, straight-talking, straightforward Jesus and the bookish, calculating, often morally tortured Christ.

At a climactic point in the story, Jesus condemns the idea of a church, saying it would cause the devil to "rub his hands with glee" and predicting that "from time to time, to distract the people from their miseries … the governors of this church will declare that such-and-such a nation or such-and-such a people is evil and ought to be destroyed … and they'll raise their standard over the smoking ruins of what was once a fair and prosperous land and declare that God's kingdom is so much the larger and more magnificent as a result".

"He is really speaking for me in that section," said Pullman. He added: "Of course I don't condemn speculative thinking, or organising people to help them do good, or setting up hospitals or giving hospitality to travelling strangers or educating people. But we have seen very recently how some aspects of all this can go wrong. People can abuse power

Then, there is this:

The book contains manipulated versions of familiar episodes from the Gospels, including the Wise and the Foolish Virgins. According to Pullman: "I think my version is much closer to what Jesus would have said. The version in the Gospels is so different from what he said usually."

Because Jesus would have been so much cooler and wiser if he had been more like Pullman.

Living History

The Dominican Rite.

Science Proves Catholic Doctrine.

In this case, it is social science proving Paul VI's predictions about widespread contraception were correct.

Here is the abstract of the paper From Shame to Game in One Hundred Years: An Economic Model of the Rise in Premarital Sex and its De-Stigmatization. According to the abstract:

Societies socialize children about many things, including sex. Socialization is costly. It uses scarce resources, such as time and effort. Parents weigh the marginal gains from socialization against its costs. Those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale indoctrinate their daughters less than others about the perils of premarital sex, because the latter will lose less from an out-of-wedlock birth. Modern contraceptives have profoundly affected the calculus for instilling sexual mores, leading to a de-stigmatization of sex. As contraception has become more effective there is less need for parents, churches and states to inculcate sexual mores. Technology affects culture.

Yes, as does ceaseless propaganda about the telos of human existence - sex.

But who cares, because it doesn't hurt anyone - except for the infidelity:

Below are compiled statistics on infidelity and marriage:


Percentage of marriages that end in divorce in America: 53%

Percentage of "arranged marriages" (where parents pick their sons or daughters spouses) that end in divorce: 3%

Medical field(s) with the highest divorce rate: psychiatrists and marriage counselors

Percentage of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional: 41%

Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 57%

Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 54%

Percentage of men and women who admit to having an affair with a co-worker: 36%

Percentage of men and women who admit to infidelity on business trips: 36%

Percentage of men and women who admit to infidelity (emotional or physical) with a brother-in-law or sister-in-law: 17%

Average length of an affair: 2 years

Percentage of marriages that last after an affair has been admitted to or discovered: 31%

Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 74%

Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 68%

Those are some pretty amazing statistics, and suggest that we've reached a point where we are strangling our capacity to trust.  The last two numbers are telling - without the capacity to trust, we have become what Jennifer Roback Morse calls "Trust Bandits." 
 
Another word for that phenomenon is "sociopathic."

Thomism and Intelligent Design

A discussion.

Remember the old days under Bush? When dissent was patriotic...

...and recess appointments were evil?

For the record, I have no problem with Obama doing what other presidents have done, albeit I have to wonder why he needs to make recess appointments since his party overwhelmingly controls the Senate.  That suggests that there is something so wrong about these appointments that they won't pass his tame Senate.

On the other hand, I have a problem with the hypocrisy of the liberal media, particularly the New York Times, that hyperventilated when Bush did the same thing.

The Myers Shuffle, or Why Terry Eagleton thinks that Richard Dawkins is a Disgrace to Atheism

Edward Feser writes:

Well, the New Atheists have incorporated this “‘give-it-a-name’ maneuver” into their own rhetorical bag of tricks, and the name they’ve chosen is “The Courtier’s Reply.” The label comes from Dawkins’ fellow biologist and atheist P.Z. Myers, and it refers to an imagined defense a court sycophant might give of the naked emperor of Hans Christian Anderson’s famous story: “Haven’t you read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots?” etc. The idea is that complaining about a New Atheist’s lack of theological knowledge is no better than the courtier’s complaint that the naked emperor’s critics haven’t read the works of Count Roderigo. In other words, it is just the same old question-begging “Leprechology” and “Pastafarianism” pseudo-defense, now tarted up with a clever marketing tag.


How does it work? Well, suppose you confront a New Atheist with the overwhelming evidence that his “objections” to Aquinas (or whomever) are about as impressive as the fundamentalist’s “chicken/egg” objection to evolution. What’s he going to do? Tell the truth? “Fine, so I don’t know the first thing about Aquinas. But I’m not going to let that stop me from criticizing him! Nyah nyah!” Even for a New Atheist, that has its weaknesses from a PR point of view. But now, courtesy of Myers, he’s got a better response: “Oh dear, oh dear … not the Courtier’s Reply!” followed by some derisive chuckling. One’s intelligent listeners will be baffled, wondering how shouting “Courtier’s Reply!” is supposed to excuse not knowing what one is talking about. And one’s more gullible followers—people like the www.infidels.org faithful who have been buying up The God Delusion by the bushel basket—will be thrilled to have some new piece of smart-assery to fling at their religious friends in lieu of a serious argument. In the confusion, the New Atheist can slip out the back door before anyone realizes he hasn’t really answered the question. Call it “the Myers Shuffle,” and feel free to fling that label back at the next fool atheist who thinks yelling “Courtier’s Reply!” should be enough to stop you in your tracks.

So, the New Atheist covers up one fallacy with another. But how do otherwise-intelligent people get themselves into this rhetorical regress in the first place? Here we need to turn from logic to politics and psychology. Dawkins and Co. have an enormous political stake in the claim that religion is inherently irrational. They want a society in which religious believers are no more welcome in the public square than racists or Holocaust deniers are. To admit that there really are respectable arguments for religion—that it is something about which reasonable people can disagree—would be at once to admit that all the extremist talk about religion being tantamount to child abuse, no more worthy of respect than belief in the tooth fairy, etc., goes out the window. It would have to be conceded that Catholic theologians and Jewish rabbis, say, have as much right to be heard on matters of public policy as boozy Vanity Fair columnists and writers of popular-science books.

Of course, it would for the same reason mean that as yet unsold copies of The God Delusion, Breaking the Spell, God is Not Great, The End of Faith, etc., would be consigned to the remainder bin, where they belong, for ill-informed extremist political tracts is really all they are. And that brings us to the last, psychological reason the New Atheists have worked themselves into such a fit of irrationality. One final thought experiment: Suppose you are Richard Dawkins, the former Charles Simonyi Professor in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. You’ve spent years criticizing creationists and Intelligent Design theorists for not doing their homework before attacking Darwinism. You’ve staked your reputation as a scientist (or as a science popularizer, anyway) on a years-long crusade against religion, dismissing it as the province of ignorant, bigoted yahoos and without a single serious argument in its favor. You’ve sold hundreds of thousands of copies of The God Delusion, presenting it as a once-and-for-all demonstration of the truth of this proposition. Experts in the relevant fields—theologians and philosophers of religion—have criticized you for not knowing what you are talking about. Fellow atheist academics have done the same. And you have dismissed them all as the objective allies of the fundamentalist bigots. The people who actually know the stuff are wrong (you claim) and you are right—despite the fact that this is the very attitude you condemn in fundamentalist bigots themselves.

In short, you’ve dug yourself into a very deep hole, and seem irresistibly compelled to keep digging. What are you going to do at this point—admit that the critics are right? Admit that you’ve been making a fool of yourself for decades and leading many less intelligent people to do the same? That you’ve done a grave injustice to the religious believers you despise, and who would relish your public humiliation? That you are a hypocrite? Not a chance.

Pride goeth before a fall. And before a fallacy. So “Courtier’s Reply!” it is, and damn the torpedoes. The New Atheism must of necessity be a New Philistinism, deliberately closing its mind to the wisdom of millennia—to the serious consideration, or even the reading, of the arguments of writers like Aristotle and Plotinus, Augustine and Aquinas, Leibniz and Clarke, lest these dangerous ideas tempt one to doubt the secularist creed. Or, in the words of a better-known exercise in doublethink: “Ignorance is strength.”

Terry Eagleton is the Marxist-Atheist literary critic and author of Reason, Faith and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate.  Eagleton's book is an interested, pointed attack on the writings of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins for, among other things, simply being bone-headed stupid for writing about things they haven't the slightest knowledge of.  I'm midway through it, and while I don't agree with Eagleton's assumptions, he has a way with a wicked turn of phrase. For example:

Predictably, Dennett's image of God is a Satanic one. He also commits the Ditchkins-like blunder of believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world, which is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for the bus.

And:

There are always topics on which otherwise scrupulous minds will cave in to the grosses prejudice with hardly a struggle.  For most academic psychologists it is Jacques Lacan; for Oxbridge philosophers it is Heidegger or Sartre; for former citizens of the Soviet bloc it is Marx; for militant atheists it is religion.

And:

This straw-targeting of Christianity is now drearily commonplace among academics and intellectuals - that is to say, among those who would not allow a first year student to get away with the vulgar caricatures in whcih they themselves indulge with such insousiance. Ditchkins on theology is rather like someone who lays claim to the title of literary criticism by commenting that there some nice bits in the novel and some scary bits as well, and it's all very sad at the end.

And:

Hitchen's God is not Great is littered with elementary theological howlers.  We learn that the God of the Old Testament never speaks of solidarity and compassion; that Christ has no human nature; and that the resurrection means that he did not die.

And:

God is not Great is also a fine illustration of how atheistic fundamentalists are in some ways the mirror image of the Christian ones.  And not just in their intemperate zeal and tedious obsessiveness.  Hitchens argues earnestly that the Book of Genesis doesn't mention marsupials ; that the Old Testament Jews surely couldn't have wandered for forty years in the desert; that the capture of the huge bedstead of the giant Og, king of Bashan, might never have occurred at all, and so on.  This is rather like someone vehemently trying to convince you, with fastidious attention to architectural and zoological detail, that King Kong could not possibly have scaled the Empire State Building because it would have collapsed under his weight. This is not to relegate the Bible as a whole to the realm of myth, poetry and fiction, thus shielding it conveniently from rational or historical investigation.  It is simply to indicate that the relations between these domains and historical fact in Scripture are exceedingly complex, and that on this score as on many another, Hitchens is hair-raisingly ignorant of generations of modern biblical scholarship.

Not Quite Watergate


The charges against James O'Keefe - he of Acorn discrediting fame - have been reduced to the misdemeanor of "entering a federal building under false pretenses."

No word on whether all the legacy media sources that ran the arrest as front page news will run this development on the front page.

Debate

Cardinal George Pell v. Atheist Dan Barker

Here is the link to the video of the debate.

The Virtue of Anger

I'm cross-posting this from Facebook so I can preserve a few links here:

Even if there is such a thing as "righteous anger", and it seems to me there is, it wouldn't follow that "anger is a right". Do you disagree, Mr. Bradley? :)

My response:

Good question.

If righteous anger is a virtue - i.e., a passion ordered by reason against injustice in the right way at the right time - then it is a part of human flourishing or excellence, then it is a natural right because natural rights are those things inherent nature that are a part of human flourishing and excellence. All virtues are by definition natural rights.

As for the first question, the virtue ethics tradition has traditionally recognized "righteous anger" as a virtue. Check out this site - http://www.copiosa.org/virtue/virtue_meekness.htm - for this observation:

"When we say that Meekness moderates the Passion of Anger according to the Dictates of Reason, it is because the Passion of Anger, in itself, is neither Good nor Evil. It can be either. There is such a thing as a Just and Righteous Anger. We have examples of this when Christ drove the Money Changers out of the Temple (Matthew 21:12), and when He looked upon the Pharisees with Anger because of their Hardness of Heart as He cured the Man with the Withered Hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:5). Again, Moses was filled with Righteous Anger when he broke the Tablets of the Law as he came upon the Israelites Worshiping the Golden Calf (Exodus 32:19)."

And then there is this obsevation by St. Thomas - http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3158.htm#article8 - defining the contrary vice to "anger":

"Anger may be understood in two ways. On one way, as a simple movement of the will, whereby one inflicts punishment, not through passion, but in virtue of a judgment of the reason: and thus without doubt lack of anger is a sin. This is the sense in which anger is taken in the saying of Chrysostom, for he says (Hom. xi in Matth., in the Opus Imperfectum, falsely ascribed to St. John Chrysostom): "Anger, when it has a cause, is not anger but judgment. For anger, properly speaking, denotes a movement of passion": and when a man is angry with reason, his anger is no longer from passion: wherefore he is said to judge, not to be angry. On another way anger is taken for a movement of the sensitive appetite, which is with passion resulting from a bodily transmutation. This movement is a necessary sequel, in man, to the movement of his will, since the lower appetite necessarily follows the movement of the higher appetite, unless there be an obstacle. Hence the movement of anger in the sensitive appetite cannot be lacking altogether, unless the movement of the will be altogether lacking or weak. Consequently lack of the passion of anger is also a vice, even as the lack of movement in the will directed to punishment by the judgment of reason."

"The lack of the passion of anger is also a vice."

So, if we have anger as a vice and "lack of anger" as a contrary vice, then under virtue ethics there has to be some median condition which is the virtue, and that virtue is described as "righteous anger" which is ordered to charity and directed against injustice, evil etc.

James Taranto...

...observes:

“One sign that ObamaCare is both bad and unpopular is that since its enactment–indeed, since just before its enactment–its supporters have been laboring mightily to change the subject. They’re eager to talk not about their great legislative and social achievement, but about how violent, racist and all-around crazy ObamaCare opponents are. On the whole, this is a false narrative.”

Taranto points out that some of the allegations of violent threats are pure nonsense:

The latter story, cited in this Politico piece, was a genuine threatening phone call, as far as we can tell. But the former claim is bunk. The coffin was not a death threat, and it was not left on the congressman's lawn. Politico has the real story:

Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.) had a coffin placed "near his home," a spokesman said Wednesday evening.

The coffin was from a prayer vigil, and protesters say that the coffin symbolized babies who would be aborted due to the health care law and was not a threat to Carnahan.

So, "street theater" is now "over the top" if it is performed by conservatives.

But I thought that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism" and that "guilt by association" was wrong. 

After all, speaking of real political violence, weren't we all told that it was wrong, wrong, wrong to point out Obama's political connection with Weatherman William Ayers.

Greg Gutfield...

 says "Anger is a Right."

"So as the anger surrounding the health care bill escalates, many in the media are reporting how the anger surrounding the health care bill is escalating!

Now I've been down this road so many times I could navigate it blindfolded and covered in peanut butter.

It goes like this: for the media, anger is only okay if its targets meet their stereotypical, romanticized criteria. Meaning: the corporation, the conservative, the daddy who never loved them.

Here's a list of people doing angry things the media is okay with:

-People calling Bush a Nazi

-Students and non students rioting on college campuses

-Animal rights freaks dousing rich folks with paint

-Actors wishing average folks would get rectal cancer

-Bureaucrats labeling military vets as potential violent right wing extremists

-Radical environmentalists advocating violence against loggers

-Pranksters throwing pies at conservative commentators (you know, somehow they never pie Michael Moore, which makes him sad; he likes pie)

But this health care bill anger is different from all that - not just because it's right, but because it involves Obama. And being angry at Obama is like being mad at Santa Claus. How can you be mad at Santa, when he brings us so many gifts?

And so, this anger is scary! It's a mark of incivility! It's deadly!

But you have a right to be angry. Unlike the entitlements we're saddled with until death, being angry is free and actually works! But we need to define why we're angry - instead of letting our adversaries do it for us.

We are angry not because we lost, but that we lost to losers. I'm not talking about Obama, or the Dems. They're winners, sadly. I'm talking about progressivism. The reason why I'm angry, my friends are angry, and my imaginary unicorn Captain Sparkles is angry - is because the greatest, most winningest country in the history of the world, just embraced the loser's doctrine.

For two hundred plus years we've kicked ass, and we're now choosing the belief system of the idiots whose asses we've kicked.

So that's why I'm angry. And why you're angry too.

And when jackasses try to take away your right to be angry - by calling it racist or extremist - tell them they're the racists. Because it's those tools who assume that anger can only be about race. And if they disagree with you, then clearly they're not just racists - but probably homophobic cannibals, too."

History and Invention.

Orthocatholic has a very interesting post on the Evangelical blind-spot -i.e., the Eastern Christian churches:

This “blind spot” often becomes real apparent when Evangelicals discuss historical theology and only mention Catholic writers from the West. For example, traditional Evangelical Protestant apologetics countering the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist most likely will focus on medieval Catholic writers and the Catholic council that defined Transubstantiation. Byzantine, Syrian, and Coptic Christian writers from the Early Church on the Real Presence are routinely ignored. The average Evangelical believes that the idea of Real Presence dates from the thirteenth century and was one of those “Catholic inventions.” This same list of “inventions,” popularized by Protestant theologian Loraine Boettner, puts the idea of seven sacraments as late as 1439. The fact that the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was a universal belief of the Ancient Church is lost on most Evangelicals, often because many of them don’t even know about the Eastern Christian Churches. Many Evangelicals confuse Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, let alone Coptic, Syrian or Armenian Orthodoxy.

Then, there is a moment when history comes alive:

Even though I had been visiting Eastern Christian Churches for a few years, I myself didn’t know about the Coptic Church’s history until I visited a parish in Arizona for Liturgy. At the time, I was Eastern Catholic and I would visit various Orthodox parishes with an Eastern Orthodox friend. We both decided to visit a Coptic parish and the priest, noticing two English-speaking visitors, decided to do most of the Liturgy in English for our benefit. At a certain point, a commemoration was made for “St. Dioscorus,” who I remembered was the Patriarch of Alexandria condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. I turned to my Eastern Orthodox friend and asked: “So these people are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox?” “No,” he replied, “we’re working on it, however.” Neither one of us could receive Communion that day. The realization hit me, from a liturgical perspective, that the Liturgy I was observing was historically quite significant. The separation between the Coptic Orthodox and the Western and Eastern Orthodox Churches was bitter and complete. What the Coptic Orthodox preserved in their liturgical tradition would give evidence of what was a “lowest common denominator” of belief when compared with the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches. What was the shared belief of the Ancient Christian Churches about 450 AD? What did they believe about the Eucharist, the Real Presence, the nature of Baptism, the seven sacraments, etc.?

St. Dioscorus?  Dioscorus is one of the "Bad Guys" in the Western tradition, but in the Coptic Church, he's a saint.

It's like going to a museum and learning that Benedict Arnold was the first President.
Orthocatholic also provides a link to this Coptic liturgy, which has some very catch tunes, and English phrases for some reason.

Obamacare - Making old people kiss their retirement drug coverage benefits good-bye.

The AP is just realizing that Obamacare will actually cost the government more money as higher taxes and the elimination of tax breaks will cause private companies to dump their medical benefits:

The health care overhaul will cost U.S. companies billions and make them more likely to drop prescription drug coverage for retirees because of a change in how the government subsidizes those benefits.


In the first two days after the law was signed, three major companies — Deere & Co., Caterpillar Inc. and Valero Energy — said they expect to take a total hit of $265 million to account for smaller tax deductions in the future.

With more than 3,500 companies now getting the tax break as an incentive to keep providing coverage, others are almost certain to announce similar cost increases in the weeks ahead as they sort out the impact of the change.

Figuring out what it will mean for retirees will take longer, but analysts said as many as 2 million could lose the prescription drug coverage provided by their former employers, leaving them to enroll in Medicare's program.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs defended the tax law change Thursday, saying the original provision allowing companies to deduct the federal subsidies from their taxable income was a "loophole" that will be closed by the health care overhaul.

For the government, the tax changes are expected to raise roughly $4.5 billion over the next decade to help pay for the health overhaul. Some of the savings would be negated by retirees enrolling in the Medicare plans.

Obama Snubs Israeli Prime Minister for Dinner with Michelle and Girls.

According to this Telegraph article:

The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.


The Israeli prime minister arrived at the White House on Tuesday evening brimming with confidence that the worst of the crisis in his country's relationship with the United States was over.
Over the previous two days, he had been feted by senior Republicans and greeted warmly by members of Congress. He had also received a standing ovation from the American Israel Public Affairs Affairs Committee, one of the most influential lobby groups in the United States.


But Mr Obama was less inclined to be so conciliatory. He immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.

When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: "I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls."

As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. "I'm still around," Mr Obama is quoted by Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. "Let me know if there is anything new."

For over an hour, Mr Netanyahu and his aides closeted themselves in the Roosevelt Room on the first floor of the White House to map out a response to the president's demands.

Although the two men then met again, at 8.20 pm, for a brief second meeting, it appeared that they failed to break the impasse. White House officials were quoted as saying that disagreements remained. Shimon Peres, the Israeli president, added: "Apparently they did not reach an understanding with the United States."

It was the second time this month that Mr Netanyahu has been at the receiving end of a US dinner-time snub.

A fortnight ago, Joe Biden the US vice president, arrived 90 minutes late for a dinner Mr Netanyahu hosted in Jerusalem after Israel announced plans to build 1,600 new homes in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish settlement in the city's predominantly Arab east.

Erupting in fury, the United States described the decision to expand Ramat Shlomo as an "insult" that undermined Mr Biden's peace making efforts and demanded that it be reversed. Palestinians see east Jerusalem, captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War, as their future capital and regard any Jewish building there as a barrier to a peace settlement.

Mr Obama's mood further soured in the minutes before his meeting with Mr Netanyahu after it emerged that approval had been given for an even more contentious Jewish building project in the heart of one of east Jerusalem's Palestinian suburbs.

First, what is it about Democrat presidents and their tendency to destabilize allies.  Obviously, I'm overstating the case since Clinton didn't as far as I know.  Although Carter ran up more than his fair share.

Second, gosh, why would we ever have thought that a man who belonged to a church that honored anti-semite Louis Farakhan would treat the Israeli Prime Minister this way?  How could we have known?

Third, is it part of the Democrat master strategy to write off the Jewish vote?  Or is it the case that secular Jews don't care about Israel?

Democrats in Support of Viagra for Child Molesters

The Dems voted to table a motion that would have amended Obamacare to prevent child molesters from getting government paid-for Viagra.

Statement of Purpose: To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion.


Vote Counts: YEAs 57

NAYs 42

Not Voting 1

Presumably, voting for the amendment would have sent the legislation back to the House.

Republican Whip: Threats and Violence are not a Partisan Political Issue

Representative Cantor shares the fact that he's been threatened and had a bullet shot through the window of his campaign office last week.  His concern is that the Dems use of the issue will just ratchet-up these activities.

Great speech to an empty house.

This is one of the best public speeches I've heard.

Watch the Congress-critter avoid saying that the IRS will fine people for not complying with Obamacare



It seems that the new Democrat rule-book is to interrupt when questions are asked and then accuse the interviewer of interrupting.

A Universal Abhorence of Abortion

Wintery Knight links to this Reason to Stand post that gleans the anti-abortion statements from the great religious traditions - and, honestly, some are great not-so-religious traditions:

There are five kinds of evil Karma which are difficult to extinguish, even if one were to repent of them. What are the five kinds of offences? The first one is killing the father, the second one is killing the mother, the third one is abortion, the fourth one is to injure the Buddha, the fifth one is to create disharmony among the Sangha assemblies. These five types of evil and sinful karma are difficult to extinguish.” -The Dharani Sutra of the Buddha


“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” -Hippocratic Oath – Greek, 4th century BC

“The law enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.” -Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian

“Do not abort a foetus or kill a child that is born.” -The Didache – the first manual of the Christian Church, AD 100 (Ok, this doesn’t exactly fit the criteria of a secular source, but it does show that this isn’t a recent tirade of the religious right.

“You shall not kill your awlad [born or unborn children] due to fear of poverty. We provide for them, as well as for you. Killing them is a gross offence.” Quran 17:311

“It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.” -Mahatma Gandhi

“They are killing the baby in the womb. How cruel! In this age of unwanted population, man is losing his compassion. That living entity must again take on that same life form to complete its designated life term in that body. And the killer must return to pay for damages.” -A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, founder of the Radha-Krishna movement

Opposition to abortion seems to qualify as something of a universal human truth, what C.S. Lewis referred to as the Tao.

Moron of the Week

Why would Jesse James be such a total dirtbag moron as to cheat on his wife Sandra Bullock?

OK, I'll admit that I didn't even know that Sandra Bullock was married to this obvious lowlife - and bad on her for poor life choices - but, still, he's a moron. 

He's a double moron for cheating on Sandra Bullock with a tattooed "fetish model" named Michelle "Bombshell" McGee (pictured at right) - which is a really cool name for a comicbook character - because you just know that an affair with a "fetish model," particularly one named "Bombshell" McGee, is not going to end well.

I don't normally provide dating advice, but you can take that observation to the bank.

Persecution Watch

Pakistani man burned alive for converting to Christianity:

Islamabad (AsiaNews) - Arshed Masih died last night in hospital from the serious injuries - burns covering 80% of his body – which the 38 year old Pakistani Christian suffered when he was set on fire because he refused to convert to Islam. The funeral of man, who died after three days of agony, should take place in the late afternoon, but the family has asked that "before an autopsy is performed." The Christian community of Pakistan condemns "with firmness" the latest episode of violence and denounces the "slowness" of the federal and provincial government to punish those responsible.


On March 19 a group of Islamic extremists burned alive Arshed Masih, a driver employed by a wealthy Muslim businessman in Rawalpindi. His wife worked as a maid in the same estate, situated in front of a police station. Recently disagreements had arisen between the employer, Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, and the couple because of their Christian faith. The couple had suffered threats and intimidation to force them to convert to Islam.

Arshed Masih (pictured) died last night at 7.45 local time after three days of agony and suffering at the Holy Family Hospital in Rawalpindi, Punjab province. His wife Martha Arshed was raped by police en she sought to denounce the violence inflicted on her husband. The couple's three children - ages 7 to 12 years - were forced "to witness the torture inflicted on their parents.

Since 2005 Arshed Masih and his wife had worked and lived on the estate of the late Sheikh Mohammad Sultan. The pressure on them to renounce Christianity had lately become incessant. The owner had come so far as to threaten "dire consequences", to persuade them to embrace Islam. The couple were also accused of a recent theft by the owner who has promised to drop the complaint for their conversion.

Update:  This article claims that the death was a suicide.

How about some more government debt we can't pay?

Social Security is at the tipping point where it is paying out more in benefits than it takes in from taxes.

Oh, joy.

Interesting how this news broke this week, rather than last week.

Too true

Want to really learn something? 

Then teach it.

As Apologetics 315 explains:

The Problem: You think you know the subject. Your study it. You are familiar with it. You are immersed in it. But only when you attempt to teach the subject will you realize where you fall short. Everything changes when it is time to teach what you think you know. The fact is that deeper learning requires elements of teaching what you are learning.




The Tools: The teaching element of learning is not limited to the formal instruction of others, as a narrow use of the word teaching may suggest. Instead, the teaching element entails an intentional internalization and re-presentation of your subject. Here are a few ways that you can learn by teaching:

1. Writing about your subject causes you to put what you have internalized into your own words. It forces you to make your ideas clear. It is intentional, specific, and displays in black and white what you know.

2.  Talking about your subject, formally or informally, allows you to interact with the ideas in a way that forces you to verbalize what you know.

3.  Explaining your subject to others allows you to adapt your material so that it can be understood by people at different levels of understanding. Your focus is to bring others to a fuller understanding; starting simply and going deeper.

4.  Rephrasing the ideas within your subject is crucial. Seek to own the idea for yourself by putting it into your own words, using your own illustrations, and presenting it from a fresh perspective.

5.  Summarizing by formulating concise verbal summaries of certain points allows your subject to be distilled in its simplest and purest form in your mind.

6.  Reviewing books on your subject is useful in extracting the key ideas from authors. This forces you to summarize and rephrase the ideas of others, which helps make them your own.

7.  Formal Teaching is the truest test. This may begin with a few individuals or a small group, and then grow to something more substantial - but perhaps here is where you can learn the most. Do those listening grasp what you are saying? Are your ideas bringing clarity - or confusion? The real-time feedback and "post-mortem" feedback from teaching opportunities can be the most useful means of learning.

The Benefits: By incorporating these elements of teaching, you provide yourself with the opportunity to learn more deeply. All of these tools will help you make the subject your own - in a way that is simply not possible otherwise.

"He was so much nicer after he died."

According to this account by atheist/philosopher A.A. Ayer's son in law, after choking in the hospital and being clinically dead for four minutes, Ayer's confessed that he had had an experiene of God that required him to rewrite his books.

Ayers didn't rewrite his books because he wanted to keep his reputation as the leader of the atheist opposition, and not have it said that he crumbled at "St. Peter's Gate."  But there were other changes:

When Ayer was released by his doctors a month later, friends and family did notice that he’d changed.


“He became so much nicer after he died,” was the mordant way my mother-in-law, Dee Wells, put it to Cash. “He was not nearly so boastful. He took an interest in other people.”

What she also noticed is that as his life ebbed away, Ayer began spending a great deal of time with Father Frederick Copleston, his former opponent in the BBC debate. Until then they’d never been particularly close, though Ayer had grudging respect for Copleston’s muscular mind. (The erudite Jesuit had taken on Bertrand Russell on the BBC a year before arguing with Ayer, to defend St. Thomas Aquinas’ five metaphysical proofs of god’s existence, not a position guaranteed to endear him to many modern rationalists). Nevertheless, in the last year of his life, Ayer spent many hours in Copleston’s company, talking and arguing about who knows what. The must have made an odd couple seated together in the darkest recesses of London’s Garrick Club. The Catholic divine even graced Ayer’s scrupulously secular cremation.

“In the end, he was Freddie's closest friend,” said Dee. “It was quite extraordinary.”

One of those "D'oh *Slap Head* Moments"

I've always thought it was a weird coincidence that the price for a gallon of gas have always been close to that of a pack of cigarettes.   Right now, for example, a gallon of gas is approaching $4 per gallon and a pack of cigarettes, I understand, is around $4 a pack.  Back when I started driving, they were both around 70 cents, as I recall.

This morning in Madera Superior Court, the Court Reporter, Bailiff and I were recollecting how low gas prices were back in the early '70s.  The bailiff remembered gas prices as low as 17 cents a gallon.  I pointed out that when I started driving, gas prices had skyrocketed to the unheard of price of 70 cents a gallon. (For our younger readers, this is what old folks talk about when they get together.)  I then pointed out the strange correlation between gas and cigarettes.

Without meeting a beat the bailiff said, "that's because most of the price in cigarettes and gas is in taxes."

*Silence*

*Reflection*

I slapped my head and made a groaning noise.  "D'oh!"

I looked at the Court Reporter and asked, "Did you know that?"

It's like a few weeks ago when I talked to a client who is involved in California water issues.  I pointed out that we must be doing well because the San Luis Obispo Reservoir - a giant Central Valley water reservoir this side of the Coastal Range - is filling up.  He looked at me and said, "You know that the SLO Reservoir is filled up by water pumped into it, not by natural rivers, right?"

Uhmmm...no, not till right then, but it sure made sense after it was pointed out.

It seems that when the SLO Reservoir has been low recently, that has everything to do with Court Orders blocking the pumping of water in order to protect the Delta smelt and nothing to do with California being in a drought.

D'oh!

At least, I know that I'm not the only one who monitors how California's water supply is doing based upon how low the water level at the SLO Reservoir seems to be.

Liberal Fascism Watch - Canadian Content Edition

This is old news by now, but going into my "Holding Paper - Liberalism" file is the example of Ann Coulter being warned by Francois Houle - Provost of the University of Ottawa - that if she exercises that thing Anglophone's call "free speech," Canada may exercise that thing called "having her arrested."  Via Mark Shea here is Monsiur Houle's billet doux:

Dear Ms. Coulter,

I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. We are, of course, always delighted to welcome speakers on our campus and hope that they will contribute positively to the meaningful exchange of ideas that is the hallmark of a great university campus. We have a great respect for freedom of expression in Canada, as well as on our campus, and view it as a fundamental freedom, as recognized by our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here. You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.

I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.

Sincerely,

François Houle
Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost
Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa
550, rue Cumberland Street
Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5
téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737
télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103

Steyn observes:

I've no idea what Ann Coulter's reaction to this letter is, but I suspect it's "Go ahead, Princess Fairy Pants, make my day." M Houle would have a very hard time persuading the Ottawa police or the RCMP to lay criminal charges over an Ann Coulter speech because they realize, even if he doesn't, that Canada doesn't need to become even more of an international laughingstock in this area. More likely is a complaint to the Canadian and/or Ontario "Human Rights" Commissions. But you know something? I don't get the feeling they'd be eager to re-ignite the free speech wars on a nuclear scale. Think of Ezra's and my appearance in the House of Commons, and then imagine the scene when Miss Coulter testifies. So the threat is an empty one and M Houle seems to be being - oh, what's the "respectful and civil" way of putting it? - a posturing wanker.

And thus does the phrase "posturing wanker" enter my day-to-day lexicon.

Apparently, the forces of the tolerant and open-minded protested against Coulter and prevented her from speaking, which obviously enriches the "market place of ideas."  Here is a blogger's report on the evening:

At about 8:09, over an hour after the lecture was supposed to begin Ezra Levant finally got up to speak. He said that there were 2000 protesters outside and that it would not be physically safe for Ann Coulter to appear. Levant did however give a little mini-speech which included some stinging words about Francois Houle.


He noted that at Western Ontario the President had said that regardless of whether he agreed with Ann Coulter or not he welcomed the diversity of opinion and that although there were many students who disagreed with Coulter and some heckling it was under control and they were able to have a good dialogue. Here Houle basically gave the students the green light to make trouble for Ann Coulter and the whole thing had to be shut down. A fish rots from the head down. He also noted that this event will expose the rot in our Canadian culture when it comes to free speech.

The head of the International Free Press Society also spoke about how they took Kurt Westergaard to Yale and Princeton and never had to fear for his life there.

Here is another on-the-spot report.

Coulter wins, with the publicity this generates for her and the chance of making leftists look like fascists.

It's funny how this kind of thing tends to backfire like that.

*Gulp*

I'm posting this because it is better to have things out in the open, rather than get blind-sided at some inopportune time. Also, it ties into the ongoing "worship war" over at Thomisticguy's blog about whether Mormons "worship" Jesus and Catholics "worship" the saints.

Long story, short because of the etymology of the term "worship," which is kind of a catch-all that rusn from honoring our superiors to honoring God, the answer would appear to be "Yes" and "In different degrees."

According to the New Advent Dictionary:

The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Latin cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.


There are several degrees of this worship:

* if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.

*  When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).

*  As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728).

In accordance with these principles it will readily be understood that a certain worship may be offered even to inanimate objects, such as the relics of a martyr, the Cross of Christ, the Crown of Thorns, or even the statue or picture of a saint. There is here no confusion or danger of idolatry, for this worship is subordinate or dependent. The relic of the saint is venerated because of the link which unites it with the person who is adored or venerated; while the statue or picture is regarded as having a conventional relation to a person who has a right to our homage — as being a symbol which reminds us of that person.

 I'm not entirely sure that I'm happy with the idea of "worshipping" an inanimate object; it just sounds wrong and un-American.

This is interesting:

In virtue of the same principle and of the equality of the Divine Persons in the Trinity, the Holy Ghost also became the object of Christian worship. The formula of baptism was given, as has been seen, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. In the doxology the Holy Spirit also has a place with the Father and the Son. In the Mass the Holy Ghost is invoked at the Epiclesis and invited to prepare the sacrifice. The Montanists, who in the second century preached, and awaited, the coming of the Holy Ghost to take the place of the Son and announce a more perfect Gospel, made Him the object of an exclusive worship, which the Church had to repress. But it nevertheless vindicated the adoration of the Holy Ghost, and in 380 the anathemas pronounced by Pope Damasus, in the Fourth Council of Rome, condemned whosoever should deny that the Holy Ghost must be adored like the Father and the Son by every creature (Denzinger, Enchiridion, n. 80). These anathemas were renewed by Celestine I and Virgilius, and the ecumenical council of 381 in its symbol, which took its place in the liturgy, formulated its faith in the Holy Ghost, "Who together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified." These expressions indicate the unity of the adoration of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; that is, that one or the other Person of the Trinity may be adored separately but not to the exclusion of the other two.

It's interesting because it contrasts nicely with the Mormon approach to worshipping the Son, which was  described by Bruce McConkie, on of the LDS Quorum of the 12 Apostles in 1982:

1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else.


We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense--the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.

Our revelations say that the Father "is infinite and eternal," that he created "man, male and female,"

And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. [D&C 20:17–19]

Jesus said:

True worshippers shall [note that this is mandatory] worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 

For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth. [JST John 4:25–26]

There is no other way, no other approved system of worship.

And then there is this:

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence:


Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son.

This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need" (Hebrews 4:16).

McConkie's statements are actually a nice working-out of the Arian implications of Mormonism, in contrast to the New Advent's Nicene Christianity.  In Nicene Christianity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, they are all consubstantial, and so they are worshipped in the same, ultimate way.

In contrast, in Arianism and among the Mormons, the Son is a lesser, created being, and, so, the worship accorded to the Son is less than that accorded to the Father, so much less, in fact, that Mormons can say "we do not worship the Son" in the same way that Catholics say that that "we do not worship saints," although they are both wrong in a sense, and in a sense they are both right.

What is particularly interesting about McConkie's sermon is how he derides both Catholic prayers to the saints and Mormon prayers to Jesus for the same reason, namely they are not directed to God, i.e., to the Suprme Being aka "that than which nothing greater can be thought."  So, McConkie accurately observes that prayers are not answered by anything less than the Supreme Being, which according to the LDS' Arian presumptions is not Jesus.  Hence, praying to Jesus is essentially -  in the LDS scheme of things - wasted effort.

McConkie's conclusion is, thus, that Jesus is a kind of super-saint.  It seems that for McConkie, Jesus plays the same role in Mormon theology that Mary plays in Catholic theology, a really super-special, first class created being.  Consequently, where Catholics offer "hyperdulia" to Mary, Mormons offer "hyperdulia" to Jesus.

I just find that to be a fascinating comparison.